ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Exploring the use and perceived impact of artificial intelligence in medical internship: a cross-sectional study of Palestinian doctors.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Generative artificial intelligence in medical education: from knowledge assessment to clinical reasoning and professional competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in medical education to support academic learning, clinical competence, and efficiency. However, the extent and impact of AI usage among medical interns, particularly in Palestine, remain underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of AI usage among internship doctors in Palestine and evaluate its perceived impact on their academic performance, clinical competence, time management, and research skills. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 307 internship doctors in Palestine. The survey collected data on the frequency and types of AI tools used, including ChatGPT, and interns' perceptions of AI's impact on their training. Demographic information, such as age, gender, and university affiliation, was also gathered to explore potential associations with AI usage patterns. Results: The study found that 76.9% of interns used AI regularly, with ChatGPT being the most popular tool (76.2%). Despite frequent use, only 3.3% reported formal AI training. The majority of interns perceived AI as beneficial in improving academic performance (61%), clinical competence (67%), and time management (74%). Notably, time management showed the highest perceived improvement. However, 75.9% expressed concerns about becoming overly reliant on AI, fearing it could diminish critical thinking and clinical judgment. Age and university affiliation were associated with differences in AI usage patterns and perceived benefits, with older interns and those from international universities reporting greater perceived improvements. Conclusion: This cross-sectional study highlights the widespread use of AI among internship doctors in Palestine and generally positive perceptions of its educational value, particularly for academic performance and clinical competence. However, it also reveals a substantial gap in formal AI training, suggesting a need for structured, ethically grounded AI education in medical curricula. Because the study is exploratory and cross-sectional, these findings should be interpreted as perceived associations rather than evidence that AI use or training causes improved outcomes; future longitudinal and interventional studies are needed to clarify long term effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.